David Norris (Independent)

I move amendment No. 20:

In page 16, subsection (4), line 26, after "Act." to insert the following:

"The percentage of the home owed to the Executive should never exceed fifteen per cent.".

This issue is about the percentage value of the assets of the person going into the nursing home that should be distrained by the State. How is this estimated? This question of value arises from time to time and can be very unfair. I speak with some personal heat, because I inherited a small portfolio of shares from my late and beloved aunt and it took two and a half years to get the will out of probate. When I inherited the shares they were at the top of the market, but by the time I was able to sell them, they were at the bottom of the market. However, I had to pay the tax on the putative value of the shares at the top and got nothing like their value at the time I inherited them. I thought that grossly unfair, but I was able to sustain the loss and it did not matter a whole lot to me.

However, think of the situation of somebody who is in straitened financial circumstances. The situation may be slightly different, but the principle of fairness still applies. How and when is the value of a house estimated? For example, the property market is falling disastrously and rapidly. It may be decided that the value is estimated from the date of application, but then there may be a sudden catastrophic collapse in the value of property. Sometimes it can take a long time to get what one considers the proper value of the house and the person may hold out for as high a price as possible, but the value may continue to drop until, finally, the person is advised he or she must accept an offer. I believe people are entitled not to be caught in this trap. Therefore, my amendment seeks to establish the fairest valuation.

The language in this section is also a bit odd. I presume it refers to other assets besides the home. The language is curiously clinical, detached and cold when it describes the executive wishing to establish the estimated market value of any "item". A house is a bit more than an item, but I am not sure how to get round the problem because the word may cover a situation where there are other assets to be disposed of. I accept there is difficulty in finding a user-friendly word, but "item" does seem clinical. I am not sure another word can be found to get round the difficulty. The principal point is that people should not suffer because of a variation in market value and we should address the question of the point at which a value is established.

On a Finance Bill some time ago, having considered the matter in the aftermath of the stinging effect of such procrastination when getting something out of probate, I suggested property should be valued at the market value at the nearest possible point to when the asset can be disposed of. I made that suggestion in terms of stocks and shares and suggest the Minister should consider a formula on those lines to ensure people get fair value. I am talking here about the discrepancy between the imagined or assessed value and the real, quantifiable value. People are vulnerable in this situation and I would not like to see them disadvantaged.